Tag: COVID19

  • Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    by Scott McCoy, Jesse Pietz and Joseph H Wilck

    Overview

    In late 2020, universities faced a moral and operational crisis: Should they reopen for in-person learning amid a global pandemic? This decision held profound ethical implications, touching on public health, education, and institutional survival. Using the Moral Intensity Framework (MIF), a multidimensional ethical decision-making model, researchers analysed the reopening choices of 62 US universities to evaluate the ethical considerations and outcomes. Here’s how MIF provides critical insights into this complex scenario.

    Why the Moral Intensity Framework matters

    The Moral Intensity Framework helps assess ethical decisions based on six dimensions:

    1. Magnitude of Consequences: The severity of potential outcomes.
    2. Social Consensus: Agreement on the morality of the decision.
    3. Probability of Effect: Likelihood of outcomes occurring.
    4. Temporal Immediacy: Time between the decision and its consequences.
    5. Proximity: Emotional or social closeness to those affected.
    6. Concentration of Effect: Impact on specific groups versus broader populations.

    This framework offers a structured approach to evaluate ethical trade-offs, especially in high-stakes, uncertain scenarios like the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Universities’ dilemma: in-person -v- remote learning

    The reopening debate boiled down to two primary considerations:

    1. Educational and Financial Pressures: Universities needed to deliver on their educational mission while addressing steep revenue losses from tuition, housing, and auxiliary services. Remote learning threatened educational quality and the financial viability of institutions, especially those with limited endowments.
    2. Public Health Risks: Reopening campuses risked COVID-19 outbreaks, jeopardising the health of students, staff, and surrounding communities. Universities also faced backlash for potential spread to vulnerable populations.

    Critical Findings Through the Moral Intensity Lens

    Magnitude of Consequences

    Reopening for in-person learning presented stark risks: potential illness or death among students, staff, and the community. However, keeping campuses closed threatened jobs, reduced education quality, and caused financial strain. The scale of harm from reopening was considered higher, particularly in densely populated campus settings.

    Social Consensus

    Public opinion and government policies influence decisions. States with stringent public health mandates leaned toward remote learning, while those with lenient regulations often pursued in-person or hybrid models. Administrators balanced community sentiment with institutional needs, highlighting the importance of localized consensus.

    Temporal Immediacy

    Health risks from in-person learning manifested quickly, while financial and educational setbacks from remote learning had longer timelines. This immediacy added ethical weight to public health considerations in reopening decisions.

    Probability of Effect

    The uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 transmission and mitigation complicated ethical judgments. Universities needed more data on the effectiveness of safety protocols, making probability assessments challenging.

    Proximity and Concentration of Effect

    Campus communities are close-knit, amplifying the emotional weight of decisions. Both reopening and remaining remote affected broad populations similarly, lessening these dimensions’ influence.

    Ethical Outcomes and Practical Mitigation Strategies

    Many universities implemented extensive safety measures to align reopening decisions with ethical standards:

    • Testing and Tracing: Pre-arrival testing, on-campus surveillance, and contact tracing reduced outbreak risks.
    • Modified Learning Environments: Hybrid and remote options ensured flexibility, accommodating vulnerable populations.
    • Health Protocols: Social distancing, mask mandates, and enhanced cleaning protocols were widely adopted.

    Despite risks, universities that reopened often avoided large-scale outbreaks, demonstrating the effectiveness of these measures.

    Lessons for Crisis Management

    The COVID-19 reopening experience offers valuable lessons for future crises:

    1. Use Multidimensional Ethical Frameworks: Applying tools like MIF provides structure to navigate complex moral dilemmas.
    2. Prioritize Stakeholder Engagement: Balancing diverse perspectives helps bridge gaps between perceived and actual risks.
    3. Adapt Quickly: Flexibility in implementing mitigation strategies can mitigate harm while achieving core objectives.
    4. Build Resilience: Strengthening financial reserves and digital infrastructure can reduce future vulnerabilities.

    Global Implications

    While this analysis focused on U.S. universities, the findings have worldwide relevance. Institutions globally grappled with similar decisions, balancing public health and education amid diverse cultural and political contexts. The Moral Intensity Framework offers a universal lens to evaluate ethical challenges in higher education and beyond.

    Conclusion

    The reopening decisions of universities during COVID-19 exemplify the intricate balance of ethical, financial, and operational considerations in crisis management. The Moral Intensity Framework provided a robust tool for understanding these complexities, highlighting the need for structured ethical decision-making in future global challenges.

    This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 20 September 2024) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2024.2404864.

    Scott McCoy is the Vice Dean for Faculty & Academic Affairs and the Richard S. Reynolds, Jr. Professor of Business at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  His research interests include human computer interaction, social media, online advertising, and teaching assessment.

    Jesse Pietz is a faculty lead for the OMSBA program at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  He has been teaching analytics, operations research, and management since 2013.  His most recent faculty position prior to William & Mary was at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

    Joseph Wilck is Associate Professor of the Practice and Business Analytics Capstone Director
    Kenneth W. Freeman College of Management, Bucknell University He has been teaching analytics, operations research, data science, and engineering since 2006. His research is in the area of applied optimization and analytics.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Enrollment Trending Upward After COVID-19

    Enrollment Trending Upward After COVID-19

    Title: Current Term Enrollment Estimates: Fall 2024

    Source: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

    Total fall 2024 enrollment rose across multiple factors—including sector, selectivity, and urban-rural classification—bringing it closer to pre-pandemic levels, according to a new report from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Service. Compared to fall 2019, overall enrollment increased by 0.4 percent, and compared to fall 2023, it grew by 4.5 percent.

    Enrollment gains were particularly strong in associate programs (up 6.3 percent), bachelor’s programs (up 2.9 percent), master’s programs (up 3.3 percent), and doctoral programs (up 2.0 percent). Private for-profit four-year institutions saw the most significant increase in first-year enrollment, surging by 26.1 percent with more than 11,000 additional students. Public institutions also experienced notable growth, with primarily associate degree-granting baccalaureate institutions up 8.4 percent and public two-year institutions increasing by 6.8 percent.

    First-year enrollment overall grew by 5.5 percent, with the most significant gains among students from the lowest-income neighborhoods (up 9.4 percent). Enrollment increases were generally aligned with neighborhood income levels, with students from the highest-income areas seeing the smallest rise (3.6 percent).

    At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, enrollment increased at both the graduate (6.5 percent) and undergraduate (3.4 percent) levels. Meanwhile, public four-year institutions in rural areas experienced the largest enrollment growth (5.6 percent), while public two-year institutions saw the biggest increases in towns (7.9 percent). Urban areas continued to enroll the most students at public two-year institutions, surpassing 2.3 million.

    Patterns of growth varied across selectivity and sector. Less selective private nonprofit four-year institutions saw the most substantial gains (5.7 percent), with similar increases at less selective public four-year institutions (5.0 percent). Enrollment at highly selective institutions followed a different trend, rising at public four-year institutions (2.9 percent) but declining at private nonprofit institutions (-2.5 percent).

    Regionally, enrollment increased at similar rates in the Northeast, South, and West (4.7 percent each) and rose by 3.1 percent in the Midwest. Utah led the nation in enrollment growth (12.1 percent), while the District of Columbia (-1.9 percent), Vermont (-0.6 percent), and Nebraska (-0.4 percent) saw declines. Graduate enrollment patterns diverged in some areas, with notable decreases in Mississippi (-4.3 percent), Delaware (-3.9 percent), and Missouri (-3.4 percent).

    Fields of study also showed shifts, with undergraduate enrollment in health professions rising 8.3 percent—effectively reversing pandemic-related declines. Among the top 20 major fields, only two saw decreases: Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies, and Humanities (-3.1 percent) and English Language and Literature/Letters (-1.5 percent).

    This data provides an encouraging outlook for higher education. Understanding who is enrolling and where is essential for institutional planning and for ensuring equitable access to higher education.

    To explore the data, click here. For the methodology, click here.

    —Erica Swirsky

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Dr. Jennifer T. Edwards: A Texas Professor Focused on Artificial Intelligence, Health, and Education: COVID-19 Outreach in Rural Areas

    Dr. Jennifer T. Edwards: A Texas Professor Focused on Artificial Intelligence, Health, and Education: COVID-19 Outreach in Rural Areas

    Over the past few months, our Rural Communication Institute (RCI) team (Dr. Jennifer T. Edwards, Dr. Subi Gandhi, and Dr. LaShondra Manning) has been tirelessly providing education and outreach for the rural areas of East Texas. This outreach has been both challenging and rewarding since the pediatric vaccine was approved by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS).

    Educating parents about the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. As a parent, I am always very excited to share health information, but especially this information has been very important for me.

    Here’s a workshop that we were very excited to view from the Texas Department of Health and Human Services. This workshop was focused on “What About the Children: Changing the Landscape on Rural Vaccine Coverage”. It focused on health in rural areas, especially for our youngest populations.

    Also, we have been fortunate to receive funding for travel for our outreach events, shirts, and giveaways. Here’s a special shout out to the Episcopal Health Foundation in Texas, because they provided so much support for our project.

    At first, we partnered with existing vaccination clinics and these were not very well attended, but THEN we decided to venture out on our own and to create our own clinics with the health of the Texas Department of State Health Services. We have been experimenting with the best time and date for our clinics as well all content for the clinics.

    We decided a “Summer Fun and Health Clinic” approach has been the best outreach strategy for reaching the community. The mid-day clinics (before 5pm) were not as well attended for some audiences (i.e. – parents), but other times had much better attendance (after 5pm).

    Also, we partnered with Agrilife (Mrs. Clarissa Moon) and Above Average Health Care and House Calls. Agrilife provided educational outreach sessions and Above Average Health Care and House Calls offered health checks and interpretations of lab results.

    Do you have any suggestions for us? We are so thankful for our partners!

    ***

    Check out my book – Retaining College Students Using Technology: A Guidebook for Student Affairs and Academic Affairs Professionals.

    Remember to order copies for your team as well!


    Thanks for visiting! 


    Sincerely,


    Dr. Jennifer T. Edwards
    Professor of Communication

    Executive Director of the Texas Social Media Research Institute & Rural Communication Institute

    Source link

  • EEOC Adds Technical Assistance Guidance to Clarify When COVID-19 Is Considered a Disability Under the ADA – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Adds Technical Assistance Guidance to Clarify When COVID-19 Is Considered a Disability Under the ADA – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 22, 2021

    On December 14, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released additional COVID-19 technical assistance to clarify certain circumstances under which employers and employees may consider COVID-19 a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The guidance, which is presented in a Q&A format, focuses broadly on the definition of disability under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and provides examples detailing how an individual diagnosed with COVID-19 or post-COVID-19 conditions could be considered to have a disability under these laws.

    According to an EEOC press release, the technical assistance adds the following key guidance:

    • An applicant’s or employee’s COVID-19 may cause impairments that can be considered disabilities under the ADA, regardless of whether the initial case of COVID-19 itself constituted an actual disability.
    • An applicant or employee with mild COVID-19 symptoms that resolve in a few weeks with no other consequences will not have a disability as defined under the ADA that would make them eligible to receive a reasonable accommodation.
    • Applicants or employees with disabilities under the ADA are entitled to a reasonable accommodation when their disability requires it, and the accommodation is not an undue hardship for the employer. They are not automatically entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Employers can choose to do more than the ADA requires.
    • Employers risk violating the ADA if they prevent employees from returning to work once the employee is no longer infectious and is medically able to return to work without posing a threat to infect others.

    The EEOC also clarifies that this technical guidance differs from July guidance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which addresses “Long COVID” as a Disability under Sections 504 and 1557 of the ADA. According to the press release, the DOJ and HHS guidance only focuses on long COVID, while the EEOC’s new technical assistance focuses more broadly on COVID-19 in the context of Title I of the ADA and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which covers employment.

    CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of any COVID-19 guidance as it relates to disability and discrimination under EEO law.



    Source link

  • White House Reviews OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard – CUPA-HR

    White House Reviews OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 25, 2021

    On October 12, the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sent their COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard Rulemaking (ETS) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA is the White House office responsible for reviewing regulations and proposed regulations before they are publicly released.

    The ETS — which has not yet been made public — is expected to require private employers with 100 or more employees to “ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative COVID-19 test twice a week” and provide paid time off for obtaining or recovering from the vaccination (additional details regarding what is known about the ETS can be found in this CUPA-HR blog).

    What is an ​Emergency Temporary Standard?

    While most federal agencies are required to provide public notice and seek comment prior to enacting new regulations, OSHA may bypass normal rulemaking and issue an ETS if doing so is necessary to protect workers from a “grave danger.” This allows OSHA to issue the ETS without any feedback from impacted stakeholders and require employers to immediately comply with the ETS upon its publication in the Federal Register.

    ​Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Review

    OIRA is part of the executive office of the president and is required to review significant regulatory actions — those likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more — before they are published in the Federal Register or otherwise issued to the public. As the ETS is determined to be “Economically Significant,” an OIRA review is triggered to ensure that it reflects the goals set forth in President Biden’s COVID-19 Plan and to ensure OSHA has carefully considered the benefits and costs of the ETS before it is issued.

    While draft documents under review are not available for public release, it is OIRA’s policy to meet with interested stakeholders to discuss issues on a rule under review. As of October 22, OIRA has convened 68 meetings with outside stakeholders on the ETS and has scheduled meetings through October 25. While CUPA-HR is aware many more additional pending meeting requests (including our own), OIRA has yet to schedule these, and may not. While OIRA review is limited to 90 days, there is no minimum period of review, and given the urgency associated with the ETS it could be issued as soon as this week.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor OIRA’s review process and be sure to inform our membership as soon as OIRA review concludes and OSHA issues the ETS.



    Source link

  • IRS Issues Employer Guidance on COVID-19 Paid Leave Tax Credits – CUPA-HR

    IRS Issues Employer Guidance on COVID-19 Paid Leave Tax Credits – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 22, 2021

    On September 7, the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2021-53, which includes guidance to employers on reporting the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees for leave taken in 2021 as provided by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

    The FFCRA required private sector employers with 500 or fewer employees to provide emergency paid family and medical leave and emergency paid sick leave to employees who could not work or telework due to certain COVID-19 complications. The FFCRA also established fully refundable tax credits that employers may receive after providing the emergency paid family and sick leave. The tax credits under the FFCRA were set to expire on December 31, 2020, but they were extended to cover wages voluntarily paid through March 31, 2021 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and again through September 30, 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Employers were no longer required to provide the paid sick and family and medical leave wages to employees after the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, but employers that voluntarily provided paid leave that would have satisfied the paid family leave and paid sick leave requirements under the FFCRA were eligible for the same fully refundable tax credits.

    The new IRS notice states that employers will be required to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees between January 1 and September 30, 2021 either on the Form W-2, Box 14, or in a separate statement provided with the Form W-2. The notice also includes model language to help employers communicate information about the qualified sick leave and family and medical leave wages to employees, as well as the impact these wages may have on tax credits the employee may be entitled to with respect to self-employment income.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any additional tax-related guidance from the IRS as it relates to COVID-19 policies and guidance.



    Source link

  • OSHA Provides Details on Upcoming COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard – CUPA-HR

    OSHA Provides Details on Upcoming COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 14, 2021

    On September 9, President Biden released his COVID-19 Action Plan, which includes a six-pronged plan to combat COVID-19 through increased vaccinations, testing and other strategies. The plan will require employers with 100 or more employees to test nonvaccinated employees on a weekly basis. The White House also announced it will require vaccinations for those working for the federal government, federal contractors and establishments providing healthcare services that accept Medicare and Medicaid.

    The Biden administration is using different agencies to implement and enforce the different requirements. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will require employers with 100 or more employees to test nonvaccinated employees on a weekly basis through an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). While OSHA has yet to release many specifics about the timing and the content of the ETS, the agency did release some information late last week.

    General Timeline of the ETS

    In a call last week with stakeholders, OSHA said it plans to publish the ETS in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, at which time the ETS will become effective immediately in states where OSHA has direct jurisdiction. The 22 states with OSHA-approved State Occupational Safety and Health Plans must adopt the ETS or a standard at least as protective within 30 days of OSHA publishing the ETS in the Federal Register.

    Because the ETS will be effective immediately once published in the Federal Register, stakeholders will not have the opportunity to provide input on the standard prior to its implementation. Instead, stakeholders may comment on the ETS after it is published in the Federal Register. OSHA will use those comments to shape the subsequent final rule that will replace the ETS, which OSHA plans to issue six months after the initial release of the ETS.

    Content and Policies of the ETS

    OSHA also said on the call that it will be working with other federal agencies to ensure the language included in the ETS is consistent with the vaccination mandates imposed on federal contractors through President Biden’s Executive Order. Additionally, OSHA clarified that it will consider the employers’ workforce and not just a single worksite in evaluating employers that meet the 100-employee threshold for coverage. The ETS testing and vaccination requirements are also not likely to extend to remote employees who are physically isolated from coworkers or customers.

    Consistent with the COVID-19 Action Plan, the ETS will also require employers to provide employees with paid time off (PTO) or allow employees to use existing PTO to obtain vaccinations and recover from post-vaccination side effects.

    Finally, OSHA reviewed several issues where it does not currently have an answer, but it intends to address in the ETS. These questions include who pays for the required employee testing and what level of vaccination is required under the ETS (i.e. one shot, two shots or even a booster shot). In addition to these questions, information on the procedures of how employers will verify vaccinations, tests and procedures for handling employees who refuse to get vaccinated or undergo routine testing will likely be addressed in the ETS.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for any information on the upcoming ETS and keep members apprised of any additional policies or requirements likely to be included as OSHA continues to work towards implementation.



    Source link

  • Biden Announces New COVID-19 Mitigation Plan – CUPA-HR

    Biden Announces New COVID-19 Mitigation Plan – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 9, 2021

    On September 9, President Biden released a new COVID-19 mitigation plan, which includes several new requirements and recommendations for employers, employees, schools and others across the country. The six-part plan includes new policies and strategies to vaccinate more unvaccinated individuals, administer booster shots, keep schools safely open, increase testing facilities and products, protect economic recovery, and improve treatments for COVID-19.

    New Vaccine Requirements for Many Employers and Employees

    In the new plan, the Biden administration announced that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is developing a rule to require all employers under OSHA’s jurisdiction with 100 or more employees “to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work.” Additionally, OSHA is developing a rule that will require these same employers to provide paid time off to their employees to allow them to get vaccinated and recover from post-vaccination symptoms. According to the plan, both of these rules will be implemented by OSHA through an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), though when the ETS will be issued is still unknown. Importantly, while OSHA’s direct jurisdiction is limited to private sector employers, the ETS requirements could extend to many state and local government employers as detailed in the February 2021 CRS report.

    In addition to the requirements for employers with 100 or more employees, the plan also announced that healthcare workers at Medicare and Medicaid participating healthcare settings will be required to be vaccinated. Unlike the requirements for employers with 100 or more employees, these requirements do not allow for a testing option in lieu of getting vaccinated. According to the announcement, this requirement will apply to over 17 million healthcare workers across the country.

    Lastly, the plan states that President Biden signed two Executive Orders that will require all federal executive branch workers and federal contractors to be vaccinated. Unlike previous Biden administration policies on vaccine mandates for federal employees and contractors, the new requirements will no longer provide the option for unvaccinated employees to undergo regular testing instead of getting vaccinated, “with exceptions only as required by law.”

    COVID-19 Testing and Booster Shots

    In addition to these new vaccine requirements, the plan lays out the Biden administration’s plans to expand and improve testing and to provide booster shots to eligible Americans. According to the plan, booster shots will begin during the week of September 20 after the Food and Drug Administration authorizes their use.

    President Calls on Entertainment Venues to Require Vaccination or Negative Tests

    While not directly mandating, the president’s plan also calls on entertainment venues such as sports arenas, large concert halls and other venues where large groups of people gather — many of which are common to campuses — to require that their patrons be vaccinated or show a negative test for entry.

    As the Biden administration moves forward with implementing this new plan, CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of any new guidance or requirements that come from this announcement.



    Source link